Tuesday's letters: D.C. discord

Published: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.

To the editor: To me, during the Oct. 3 debate, the most significant question Jim Lehrer asked was the last one. He suggested that the current conflict in Washington between the Republicans, the Democrats and the president was very serious and asked the candidates how they planned to handle it.

Mitt Romney responded that he was faced with a comparable situation when he was governor in Massachusetts (and as a 30-year resident of Massachusetts, I know what a problem that was), and that he would meet with the leaders of both parties and work with them. Barack Obama didn’t even respond to the question. I don’t remember what his response was, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

In “The Price of Politics,” Bob Woodward discusses this problem at length. Apparently even the Democrats are now fighting with the president. If the discords in Washington can’t be resolved, nothing good will happen, and the president must recognize that, but obviously he doesn’t know how he is going to handle the problem.

I don’t see how any of the problems the forthcoming president will face can be any more serious than this one, and we need a president who thinks he can handle it.

Sydney B. Self

Hendersonville

A flip-flopper

To the editor: Ed Gillespie, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, said on “This Week” recently that we saw the real Mitt at the Oct. 3 debate. Really. Who has been campaigning for six years? Which one wrote off the 47 percent? Which one questioned whether the Brits could put on an Olympics?

Just who is the “real” Mitt? Maybe, like his positions on various things like pre-existing conditions, immigration and taxes, he can switch from one Mitt to the other. Wow. What a flip-flopping gymnast.

I saw a man speaking well but with a supercilious smile on his face whenever President Barack Obama spoke, as if he was a small child in his way. I saw a man who was rude to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, and wouldn’t stop talking when his time was up and Jim tried to tell him that. I saw a man who was a made-to-order candidate for this debate. I wonder who we will see and hear next time.

Lois Baumann

Hendersonville

Mitt’s new lies

To the editor: I watched Debate 1. I was worn out by Mitt Romney’s snarky hyper-bullying and his chilling grimaces, not to mention all of his brand-new positions on each issue. I respected the president for staying away from the zingers and remaining decent, dignified, subtle and kind.

Candidate Romney confuses me with his constant changing positions (suddenly he can’t wait to hire more teachers and is in love with the middle class?). President Barack Obama seemed baffled by it, and so was I.

If Romney “won,” thinking Americans should be worried. For the next two weeks, Romney will marinate in his new lies. Our president is a pretty good cook, but could use a little hot sauce.

Sharon Mills

Hendersonville

Class warfare

To the editor: I have been listening to an endless tirade against the “rich” and calling for everybody to pay their “fair share” of taxes. This rhetoric of class warfare sounds familiar to me, who lived in a “workers’ paradise” state in Eastern Europe.

The communist socialist government, aiming for Utopia, confiscated all wealth and means of production. Capitalism, the engine of job and wealth creation, disappeared along with the middle class. The centrally planned state became the employer, the governing elites on top and the workers on bottom. So in 1991 its experiment in Utopia came to a halt after millions died in prison or from starvation.

The Democrats are still chasing socialism and the dream of equality in outcomes. So why do the Democrats agitate for the power to decide who is “rich” or what is the “fair share” of taxes? Because two classes are easier to control than several. The rich will make deals to keep their wealth and the poor will beg for government handouts. The governing elites will have a huge voting bloc. The middle class will disappear.

Elizabeth Balogh

Hendersonville

PBS funding

To the editor: During the first presidential debate, I listened to Mitt Romney with a growing sense of frustration. I kept wondering, “Why do you have to take things away to try to get a vote?” His discussion of PBS funding showed his whole way of thinking in a microcosm.

Mr. Romney has a way of saying what he’s supposed to in his prepared remarks — such as “I value all Americans” and “Education is important.” Invariably, he goes off script and then shows his real thinking — “It’s not my job to worry about the 47 percent” and “I like Big Bird, but I will cut PBS funding.”

PBS is the biggest classroom in the country and provides education services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including many who have limited options, such as folks living in rural areas and children who cannot attend preschool. If he values education, why would he want to take this away from this segment of the American population?

My children grew up with Big Bird and Cookie Monster. My grandchildren grew up with the Grouch in his trash can and the Count. Why does Mr. Romney want to take them away, just to try to get a vote?

Donald Reid

Hendersonville

Scripted rhetoric

To the editor: Valuing style above substance is a major problem in our country. Granted, I would have liked to have seen a more animated performance on the part of President Barack Obama in the first debate. But I would rather have a President Obama who cares, thinks and has moved America forward despite obstructionism than a Mitt Romney who hides his money overseas, hires people to find questionable loopholes to avoid paying his taxes and his children’s inheritance taxes (the middle class will have to make up for the money Romney has saved), and Etch-A-Sketches his remarks to fit the audience so one isn’t sure whether he believes in anything.

Overbearing interruptions and scripted sarcastic rhetoric are not what I value in the leader of my country. Even Honey Baby BooBoo and her handlers know how to use the mass media to their advantage.

Sylvie Horvath

Asheville

Romney the bully

To the editor: Many say he looked “presidential” in the first debate. What I saw was Mitt Romney, the Cranbrook High School senior who pinned down a presumed gay younger classmate and cut off his hair. I saw Mitt Romney the simpering bully who interrupted and spoke over the moderator to, yet again, reinvent his position on issues such as taxes, the middle class, the deadbeat 47 percent, Medicare, Wall Street reform and health care reform.

Yes, there were times I wanted President Barack Obama to call Mitt on his lies and flip-flops, but on reflection, I realize you don’t beat bullies with counterattacks. The strength of moral and ethical truths will win on Nov. 6. Obama is our president, and once again this patriot is feeling proud.

<p>To the editor: To me, during the Oct. 3 debate, the most significant question Jim Lehrer asked was the last one. He suggested that the current conflict in Washington between the Republicans, the Democrats and the president was very serious and asked the candidates how they planned to handle it.</p><p>Mitt Romney responded that he was faced with a comparable situation when he was governor in Massachusetts (and as a 30-year resident of Massachusetts, I know what a problem that was), and that he would meet with the leaders of both parties and work with them. Barack Obama didn’t even respond to the question. I don’t remember what his response was, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with the question.</p><p>In The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward discusses this problem at length. Apparently even the Democrats are now fighting with the president. If the discords in Washington can’t be resolved, nothing good will happen, and the president must recognize that, but obviously he doesn’t know how he is going to handle the problem.</p><p>I don’t see how any of the problems the forthcoming president will face can be any more serious than this one, and we need a president who thinks he can handle it.</p><p><em>Sydney B. Self</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>A flip-flopper</h3>
<p>To the editor: Ed Gillespie, senior advisor to the Mitt Romney campaign, said on This Week recently that we saw the real Mitt at the Oct. 3 debate. Really. Who has been campaigning for six years? Which one wrote off the 47 percent? Which one questioned whether the Brits could put on an Olympics?</p><p>Just who is the real Mitt? Maybe, like his positions on various things like pre-existing conditions, immigration and taxes, he can switch from one Mitt to the other. Wow. What a flip-flopping gymnast.</p><p>I saw a man speaking well but with a supercilious smile on his face whenever President Barack Obama spoke, as if he was a small child in his way. I saw a man who was rude to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, and wouldn’t stop talking when his time was up and Jim tried to tell him that. I saw a man who was a made-to-order candidate for this debate. I wonder who we will see and hear next time.</p><p><em>Lois Baumann</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Mitt’s new lies</h3>
<p>To the editor: I watched Debate 1. I was worn out by Mitt Romney’s snarky hyper-bullying and his chilling grimaces, not to mention all of his brand-new positions on each issue. I respected the president for staying away from the zingers and remaining decent, dignified, subtle and kind.</p><p>Candidate Romney confuses me with his constant changing positions (suddenly he can’t wait to hire more teachers and is in love with the middle class?). President Barack Obama seemed baffled by it, and so was I.</p><p>If Romney won, thinking Americans should be worried. For the next two weeks, Romney will marinate in his new lies. Our president is a pretty good cook, but could use a little hot sauce.</p><p><em>Sharon Mills</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Class warfare</h3>
<p>To the editor: I have been listening to an endless tirade against the rich and calling for everybody to pay their fair share of taxes. This rhetoric of class warfare sounds familiar to me, who lived in a workers’ paradise state in Eastern Europe.</p><p>The communist socialist government, aiming for Utopia, confiscated all wealth and means of production. Capitalism, the engine of job and wealth creation, disappeared along with the middle class. The centrally planned state became the employer, the governing elites on top and the workers on bottom. So in 1991 its experiment in Utopia came to a halt after millions died in prison or from starvation.</p><p>The Democrats are still chasing socialism and the dream of equality in outcomes. So why do the Democrats agitate for the power to decide who is rich or what is the fair share of taxes? Because two classes are easier to control than several. The rich will make deals to keep their wealth and the poor will beg for government handouts. The governing elites will have a huge voting bloc. The middle class will disappear.</p><p><em>Elizabeth Balogh</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>PBS funding</h3>
<p>To the editor: During the first presidential debate, I listened to Mitt Romney with a growing sense of frustration. I kept wondering, Why do you have to take things away to try to get a vote? His discussion of PBS funding showed his whole way of thinking in a microcosm.</p><p>Mr. Romney has a way of saying what he’s supposed to in his prepared remarks  such as I value all Americans and Education is important. Invariably, he goes off script and then shows his real thinking  It’s not my job to worry about the 47 percent and I like Big Bird, but I will cut PBS funding.</p><p>PBS is the biggest classroom in the country and provides education services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including many who have limited options, such as folks living in rural areas and children who cannot attend preschool. If he values education, why would he want to take this away from this segment of the American population?</p><p>My children grew up with Big Bird and Cookie Monster. My grandchildren grew up with the Grouch in his trash can and the Count. Why does Mr. Romney want to take them away, just to try to get a vote?</p><p><em>Donald Reid</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Scripted rhetoric</h3>
<p>To the editor: Valuing style above substance is a major problem in our country. Granted, I would have liked to have seen a more animated performance on the part of President Barack Obama in the first debate. But I would rather have a President Obama who cares, thinks and has moved America forward despite obstructionism than a Mitt Romney who hides his money overseas, hires people to find questionable loopholes to avoid paying his taxes and his children’s inheritance taxes (the middle class will have to make up for the money Romney has saved), and Etch-A-Sketches his remarks to fit the audience so one isn’t sure whether he believes in anything.</p><p>Overbearing interruptions and scripted sarcastic rhetoric are not what I value in the leader of my country. Even Honey Baby BooBoo and her handlers know how to use the mass media to their advantage.</p><p><em>Sylvie Horvath</em></p><p><em>Asheville</em></p><h3>Romney the bully</h3>
<p>To the editor: Many say he looked presidential in the first debate. What I saw was Mitt Romney, the Cranbrook High School senior who pinned down a presumed gay younger classmate and cut off his hair. I saw Mitt Romney the simpering bully who interrupted and spoke over the moderator to, yet again, reinvent his position on issues such as taxes, the middle class, the deadbeat 47 percent, Medicare, Wall Street reform and health care reform.</p><p>Yes, there were times I wanted President Barack Obama to call Mitt on his lies and flip-flops, but on reflection, I realize you don’t beat bullies with counterattacks. The strength of moral and ethical truths will win on Nov. 6. Obama is our president, and once again this patriot is feeling proud.</p><p><em>Judy Gower</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p>